65 replies to this topic

[Lamanite]

Not sure what Brian's "testimony" was supposed to comprise, but if Brother Peterson requested a half hearted treatment of the reasons for Polygamy and a promotion of Brian's works then I understand.  Otherwise, this is nothing like a testimony, IMO.

Brian C. Hales- pseudo testimony.

Big UP!

Lamanite

P.S.  I'm not saying he doesn't have a testimony, I'm just saying perhaps he should have mentioned Jesus once or twice.


edit to add:  Sorry if this was harsh but I had just read the testimonies of Jeff Bradshaw, Davis Bitton, John Gee, and Kevin Barney.  In comparison, Brother Hales seemed to satisfy the prerequisites for "spiritual twinkie" and mere "fleeting factoids".

Edited by Lamanite, 07 September 2010 - 08:25 AM.

[Daniel Peterson]

He offered a testimony of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.

That may not be the testimony that you wanted, but it's the testimony that, on this particular occasion, he felt moved upon to offer -- and, coming from somebody who has devoted considerable effort (the results of which are yet to be fully published) to one particular issue that often impacts judgments of the Prophet's character and reliability, that's no small thing.

I do not prescribe what people write for "Mormon Scholars Testify," and do not substantially edit what they submit.

I certainly hope that, if you sit in similar judgment on the testimonies (or, from your point of view, the "testimonies" and "pseudo-testimonies") that are offered in your congregation on Fast Sundays, the members of your ward are unaware of it.

Quote

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."  (Theodore Roosevelt, "The Man in the Arena," speech at the Sorbonne, in Paris, France, on 23 April 1910)

.

Edited by Daniel Peterson, 07 September 2010 - 08:46 AM.

[yesucan2]

Daniel Peterson, on 07 September 2010 - 08:33 AM, said:

He offered a testimony of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.

That may not be the testimony that you wanted, but it's the testimony that, on this particular occasion, he felt moved upon to offer -- and, coming from somebody who has devoted considerable effort (the results of which are yet to be fully published) to one particular issue that often impacts judgments of the Prophet's character and reliability, that's no small thing.

I do not prescribe what people write for "Mormon Scholars Testify," and do not substantially edit what they submit.

I certainly hope that, if you sit in similar judgment on the testimonies (or, from your point of view, the "testimones" and "pseudo-testimonies") that are offered in your congregation on Fast Sundays, the members of your ward are unaware of it.

:

Sorry that I harp on this, but I really like informal logic.   It occurs to me that this is at the core of many arguments of the critics which makes many of them a circular argument in that the assumption of the conclusion is included in their premise(s).

For example:

Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon (doesn't live up to some critic's expectation of how a true prophet would have translated the Book of Mormon)

---Therefore Joseph Smith is a false prophet.

Edited by yesucan2, 07 September 2010 - 08:53 AM.

[Lamanite]

Daniel Peterson, on 07 September 2010 - 08:33 AM, said:

He offered a testimony of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.

That may not be the testimony that you wanted, but it's the testimony that, on this particular occasion, he felt moved upon to offer -- and, coming from somebody who has devoted considerable effort (the results of which are yet to be fully published) to one particular issue that often impacts judgments of the Prophet's character and reliability, that's no small thing.

I do not prescribe what people write for "Mormon Scholars Testify," and do not substantially edit what they submit.

I certainly hope that, if you sit in similar judgment on the testimonies (or, from your point of view, the "testimones" and "pseudo-testimonies") that are offered in your congregation on Fast Sundays, the members of your ward are unaware of it.

Oh, I'm both critic and participant.  If you think you're different then you need to check yourself.  Smile, you're imperfect!  Our imperfections don't excuse the negative behaviors, but realizing we are imperfect helps make us less pompous and arrogant as we walk the road of discipleship.  

I'm not covered in the blood and guts of the arena; I'm covered in the juices of our Ward canning assignments and the dust of Ward moving projects.  LOL.  But I seriously believe that is where our testimony finds traction.  Charity is where testimony finds conversion, IMO.  Otherwise...sounding brass and the likes.

I know the guy has a specialty, but it seemed a little light.  I judge the value of testimonies all the time.  I think we all do to a certain degree.  I think we should evaluate how a testimony has affected us and what part our own spirituality has contributed/detracted to the process.  Yeah, I judged it.  It had little value to me.  And compared to other testimonies at your site, I think is a little weak on testimony and heavy on "fleeting factoids".

Big UP!

Lamanite

PS- I know your keyboard is much more wittier than mine, so I give up early.

Edited by Lamanite, 07 September 2010 - 09:06 AM.

[Daniel Peterson]

Lamanite, on 07 September 2010 - 09:03 AM, said:

I know the guy has a specialty, but it seemed a little light.  I judge the value of testimonies all the time.  I think we all do to a certain degree.  I think we should evaluate how a testimony has affected us and what part our own spirituality has contributed/detracted to the process.  Yeah, I judged it.  It had little value to me.  And compared to other testimonies at your site, I think is a little weak on testimony and heavy on "fleeting factoids".

I never imagined that everybody would find all entries equally helpful.  There would have been little point in having more than one, were that the case.

Different voices will appeal to different people at different times.

The same is true with sacrament meeting talks and public expressions of testimony.  Some are more powerful to me than others.  But I don't sit out in the audience holding up a score at the end of every talk and testimony.

[Lamanite]

So in your opinion we should not criticize public expressions of testimony?  Sincerely curious.

Big up!

Lamanite

Sent using my iDizzle fools.

[kamenraider]

Quote

...
Throughout my analysis of their [fundamentalist Mormon] teachings, I remain unconvinced that their efforts are approved of God. Despite their apparent sincerity and traditions, I believe they are grossly misguided and in error.
...
I believe that for Latter-day Saints today, the scary part of Joseph Smith’s polygamy is not Joseph Smith, not his choices and behaviors. The scary part of Joseph Smith’s polygamy is simply polygamy, for he established it among his followers and lived it, emulating ancient prophets.

--Brian C. Hales

I would have been more impressed if he could say that he knows that fundamentalist Mormons are in error, but at least his testimony struck me as being an honest one. I recall a member of the polygamy group that his sister joined responding to a paper he delivered at a Sunstone symposium by saying that he's "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." In the epistle of James (1:22), he writes "be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." Brian Hales knows all about the 1886 revelation to John Taylor and admits that it is most likely authentic, yet places a strained misinterpretation upon it in order to avoid facing the implications.

[ERMD]

I appreciate his reasoning and conviction.  It did seem a bit heavy on the self-promoting side, though.

[Daniel Peterson]

Lamanite, on 07 September 2010 - 09:57 AM, said:

So in your opinion we should not criticize public expressions of testimony?  Sincerely curious.

Let me tell a story:

I learned German rather well on my mission.

After I had been home for quite a while, I attended the homecoming of one of my favorite junior companions (whose German, by the way, was entirely adequate).  When it came time for him to bear his testimony auf Deutsch, he explained that he wasn't going to do it because he was intimidated by the fact that I was sitting in the audience.

I was mortified.  I had made it a personal rule never to correct anybody's prayer or testimony, and, frankly, don't really recall having acted the part of a "grammar Nazi" at any point.

No, I do not publicly critique testimonies, whatever I may privately think.

I find the thought abhorrent.

[Daniel Peterson]

ERMD, on 07 September 2010 - 10:33 AM, said:

I appreciate his reasoning and conviction.  It did seem a bit heavy on the self-promoting side, though.

The published and soon-to-be-published works that he mentions are quite important.

I was (and am) happy to have them brought to the attention of readers.

[Lamanite]

Daniel Peterson, on 07 September 2010 - 10:46 AM, said:

Let me tell a story:

I learned German rather well on my mission.

After I had been home for quite a while, I attended the homecoming of one of my favorite junior companions (whose German, by the way, was entirely adequate).  When it came time for him to bear his testimony auf Deutsch, he explained that he wasn't going to do it because he was intimidated by the fact that I was sitting in the audience.

I was mortified.  I had made it a personal rule never to correct anybody's prayer or testimony, and, frankly, don't really recall having acted the part of a "grammar Nazi" at any point.

No, I do not publicly critique testimonies, whatever I may privately think.

I find the thought abhorrent.

I guess I was criticizing what I considered to be his assessment and opinions on Polygamy and Joseph.  The last paragraph seems to contain his testimony and I don't take issue with that at all.  I felt comfortable commenting because in my opinion, what he wrote wasn't what I would normally consider a testimony but statement of his opinion.  What eternal or salvational elements could the Holy Ghost witness to in his statement?  Not much if you ask me.  But I'm quite certain no one asked me; so I not so graciously retract my criticism.  I'd probably feel embarrassed and hurt if someone criticized my heart felt testimony.

I feel where you are coming from.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited by Lamanite, 07 September 2010 - 11:28 AM.

[kolipoki09]

kamenraider, on 07 September 2010 - 10:23 AM, said:

Brian Hales knows all about the 1886 revelation to John Taylor and admits that it is most likely authentic, yet places a strained misinterpretation upon it in order to avoid facing the implications.

Before we start to dig into our respective opinions on this matter, I'd like you to reference examples where Hales "places a strained misinterpretation" on his exegesis of the 1886 Taylor revelation.

I've heard it said on this board that the statements "I have not revoked this law nor will I for it is everlasting and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof" and the "New and Everlasting Covenant" were exclusively referring to plural marriage, and that "Celestial Marriage" as referenced at the time, was synonymous with plural marriage.

I would contend then just as it is now, that the "New and Everlasting Covenant" extends to a much broader interpretation and meaning than proponents of plural marriage are willing to believe.

EDIT: We may want to start a new thread so as to not derail this one. If you agree to it, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't.

Edited by kolipoki09, 07 September 2010 - 05:56 PM.

[kamenraider]

I'd like to invite Bro. Hales to discuss the 1886 revelation with me on this board. Since someone has graciously and without warning or explanation removed my ability to start new threads, I wont be able to start a thread about it. Since Brian Hales has joined and posted here recently, maybe he will take notice and join the discussion.

As far as Hales misinterpreting the 1886 revelation, Drew Briney makes these comments:

Quote

A Textual Analysis of the 1886 Revelation

1886 REVELATION EXCERPT  
My son John: You have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant
and how far it is binding upon my people.  Thus saith the Lord:

Hales contends that this opening phrase referring to the new
and everlasting covenant refers to the fullness of the gospel in general
– in keeping with D&C 22.  However, contemporary usage of the
terminology “new and everlasting covenant” demonstrates that the
typical usage of these terms was in conjunction with plural marriage.  
Although there are references that use these terms in connection with
the fullness of the gospel in general, this was not the predominant
usage of the term in the 1880s – a fact critics would feign forget.  A
few representative and contemporary statements from LDS apostles
are worthy of preliminary attention.  Undoubtedly, more could be
amassed but these statements are dispositive with a cursory reading:  

WILFORD W. WOODRUFF  3/3-4/1883
The new and everlasting Covenant is marriage, plural marriage.  …  what is the
Covenant?  It is the eternity of the marriage covenant, and includes a plurality of
wives and takes both to make the law.
Utah Stake Historical Record (27)

WILFORD W. WOODRUFF  5/22/1888
When a man, according to the revelation, marries a wife under the holy order which
God has revealed and then marries another in the same way, he enters into the
new and everlasting covenant, so far as he has gone he has obeyed the law.
Letter to Bishop S.A. Woolley (28)

AN EPISTLE FROM THE FIRST PRESIDENCY  10/6/1885
Upward of forty years ago the Lord revealed to his church the principle of celestial
marriage.  The idea of marrying more wives than one (29) was as naturally abhorrent
to the leading men and women of the church, at that day, as it could be to any
people.  They shrank with dread from the bare thought of entering into such
relationship.  But the command of God was before them in language which no
faithful soul dare disobey,  
“For, behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not
that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant, and be
permitted to enter into my glory.”
MFP 3:32-33

BRIGHAM YOUNG  CIRCA 1877
The revelation commanding the principle of plural marriage, given by God through
Joseph Smith, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in its first
paragraph, has the following language:  “Behold I reveal unto you a new and
everlasting covenant.”
MS 40:227 (30)
  
Additionally, the opening words “how far it is binding upon
my people” goes against Hales’ interpretation that this was for John
Taylor’s “private enlightenment.”  That is, Taylor was clearly asking
a question on behalf of the Lord’s people – he was asking the degree to
which the people were bound to live the new and everlasting covenant
– he was not asking the degree to which he was personally bound to
live the new and everlasting covenant.  Admittedly, one could stretch
this reading to argue that John Taylor was curious as to what degree
the saints were required to abide by the new and everlasting covenant
in its broadest sense.  However, this makes little sense given the
further context of such an inquiry and in context of the contemporary
usage of the term.

A careful reading of this opening phrase further rejects the
contention that this revelation is about the new and everlasting
covenant in its broadest sense.  Such a reading is decidedly odd if one
considers what other covenant (31) would John Taylor have been asking
to remove?  None of the other commandments at this time were
particularly controversial. (32) Why would John Taylor ask how binding
all of the commandments were upon the people?  In the alternative,
why would John Taylor have been asking “How far is baptism binding
upon the people?” or “How far are temple endowments binding upon
the people?”  In summary, with only the slightest contextual
considerations, it is evident that the opening sentence shows Hales’
interpolative reasoning void of any credible historical validation.

Of tangential interest, John W. Taylor capitalized and double
underlined “Thus Saith the Lord” in his copy of the revelation.  
Beyond his contemporary commentaries on this revelation, this detail
alone suggests that he felt quite passionately about the content of this
short revelation.

1886 REVELATION EXCERPT  
All commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my
name unless they are revoked by me or by my authority and how can I revoke an
everlasting covenant?

The terms commandments (plural) and covenant (singular)
appear to confer upon the “everlasting covenant” the status of a
commandment – a fact that fundamentalists are quick to observe.  

1886 REVELATION EXCERPT  
For I the Lord am everlasting and my covenants cannot be abrogated nor done
away with; but they stand forever.

Notice that covenants here is plural and the “new and
everlasting covenant” used above is singular.  This transfer from
plural to singular and back happens a number of times and seems to
suggest that even though John Taylor was praying for an answer for
an application to a single covenant, he received a revelation that was
to be applied to all commandments and covenants as well.  It is likely
this detail that led to Hales’ novel interpretation.  In what appears to
be a simple scrivener’s error, John W. Taylor’s copy inserts the
additional word “everlasting” in front of “covenants.”

1886 REVELATION EXCERPT  
Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject?  Yet have not great
numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping
of my commandment,

This “subject” suggests that the revelation is specifically
referring to one commandment, not a series of commandments or all
of the commandments as Hales suggests.  Further the saints had been
negligent in keeping the law of plural marriage – there appears to be
no little or no historical basis to believe that they were being negligent
in keeping all of their covenants.  As outlined in the first section of
this volume, there were thousands of saints who were prepared to
abandon plural marriage.  This “negligence” on their part is
consistent with the interpretation that this revelation was about
plural marriage.
  
“My law” and “this law” used throughout the revelation
refers to one law – not several laws of the gospel – and this
terminology is repeated within the revelation just as it is repeated
thirty-three times in D&C 132.  Incidentally, verses 1, 4, 6, and 41
when read as a harmonious ensemble connect the concepts of plural
marriage and the new and everlasting covenant.  Indeed, references
from the early brethren rarely, if ever, refer to D&C 132 as a
revelation on celestial or eternal marriage outside of a polygamous
context until after the 1890 manifesto was issued.  Before that time,
the record appears unilaterally consistent in branding D&C 132 as the
revelation on polygamy.

1886 REVELATION EXCERPT  
and yet have I borne with them these many years and this because of their
weakness because of the perilous times.

This phrase referring to perilous times in 1886 also clearly
refers to a time when baptism into the Church was not perilous but
when entering into plural marriages was a very dangerous endeavor.

1886 REVELATION EXCERPT  
And furthermore it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in
regard to these matters.  Nevertheless I the Lord do not change and my word and
my covenants and my law do not.

Note that “word” is singular, “covenants” is plural, and “law”
is singular. (33)

John W. Taylor’s copy reverses this order and says “my
law, and my covenants do not.”  More important however is the
reference to free agency.  It appears that at least some members of the
Church were interpreting this language to justify the practice of
taking concubines by special vows.  This issue is taken up more
thoroughly in chapter 11.

1886 REVELATION EXCERPT  
And as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph all those who would enter into
my glory must and shall obey my law.

The only verses of scripture that the Lord can be referring to
here are D&C 132:4 and D&C 132:27.

D&C 132:4  
For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not
that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be
permitted to enter into my glory.

D&C 132:27  
…and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be
damned, saith the Lord.

1886 REVELATION EXCERPT  
And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham's seed and would enter
into my glory they must do the works of Abraham?

The commandment to do the works of Abraham is found in
only one scripture: D&C 132:32.  (34)

D&C 132:32  
Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be
saved.

1886 REVELATION EXCERPT  
I have not revoked this law nor will I for it is everlasting and those who will enter
into my glory must obey the conditions thereof, even so Amen.

John W. Taylor underlines each word of the phrase “I have
not revoked this law nor will I.”  The reader should here recall that
this promise was not confined to this revelation.  A number of
prophecies have been issued by leading brethren of the Church
declaring that some saints will never cease to practice plural marriage.  
Nevertheless, the 1886 revelation quickly became the poster child for
this concept and it remains so today.


(27) Utah Stake Historical Record #64904/CH0/1877-1888. Quarterly Conference
held March 3rd and 4th, 1883; Sunday, 2 PM (page 271) as cited in Declarations
of the First Presidency on Temple Work 5:44.

(28) As cited in With Uplifted Hands, (Unpublished materials copied from Church
Archives and a miscellaneous compilation of quotes: no date), 24.  A copy is in the
author’s possession; electronic copies are circulating online with supplemental
materials.

(29) Note that “marrying more wives than one” is used as a synonym with “the principle
of celestial marriage.”  As argued earlier, this is consistent with contemporary
usage of this term.

(30) For a reference equating the new and everlasting covenant with the Church of the
Firstborn, see JST Genesis 9:15, 22-23.

(31) Parenthetically, if plural marriage was considered as one of these covenants, then
the revelation still says what the fundamentalists purport that it says – plural
marriage is a “covenant” that cannot be abrogated, not a “practice” that was non-
essential.

(32) If one were to equate the covenant to obey the law of consecration with the United
Order, one could argue that this commandment was controversial in the 1880s as
well.  However, that reading is antithetical to the position of fundamentalist critics
(viz., the United Order is a commandment) so this argument must be discarded as
well.

(33) There are a few possible explanations for this.  The first is that there is more than
one covenant at issue with plural marriages – at least one covenant to each wife.  
The other possibility is found in an unpublished manuscript entitled With Uplifted
Hands. Temple president Pres. McAllister observed:


PRESIDENT MCALLISTER  9/3/1888
Our young people come here to be married to be husband and wife through all
eternity taking upon them covenants to observe all the laws, rites and ceremonies
pertaining to the Holy order of Matrimony, this is the way God has established, and
the ceremony that seals one wife to a man seals other wives.  And when a man
takes a wife they enter this sacred order and covenant to observe all the rites in
this.  The man covenants to take more wives, the woman covenants to do the part
of Sarah and gives her consent for him to take more wives.  Hoped the young
people would understand these things.  A covenant not kept is a covenant broken.  
When we enter that covenant we must continue in it.  Still there is no one here who
will say you shall take more wives, that is left entirely with yourselves.  
K9361R  St. George Minute Book, 102-1O3 (Monday 9/3/1888)

Thus, this temple president understood that every marriage ceremony entails
multiple rites and/or covenants.  

(34) It may also be an allusion to John 8:39: “ …  Jesus saith unto them, If ye were
Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham” but this language could in
no wise be construed as a commandment.  Incidentally, the “works of Abraham”
was a common euphemism referring to plural marriage.  The Works of Abraham, an
academic treatment of Mormon plural marriage, demarcates this understanding is
held by prominent historian B. Carmon Hardy.

--Silencing Mormon Polygamy: Failed Persecutions, Divided Saints & the Rise of Mormon Fundamentalism, 1st ed., by Drew Briney, Spanish Fork UT: Hindsight Publications 2008, pgs. 142-146.

Edited by kamenraider, 07 September 2010 - 10:25 PM.

[kamenraider]

Brian Hales seems to have overlooked my post above, so I just sent him a private message inviting him to discuss the 1886 revelation on this board.

[Lamanite]

kamenraider, on 15 September 2010 - 10:52 PM, said:

Brian Hales seems to have overlooked my post above, so I just sent him a private message inviting him to discuss the 1886 revelation on this board.

I would not consider it a derail and would love to hear from Brother Hales, on any of the topics.


Big UP!

Lamanite

[Stargazer]

Daniel Peterson, on 07 September 2010 - 09:17 AM, said:

I never imagined that everybody would find all entries equally helpful.  There would have been little point in having more than one, were that the case.

Different voices will appeal to different people at different times.

The same is true with sacrament meeting talks and public expressions of testimony.  Some are more powerful to me than others.  But I don't sit out in the audience holding up a score at the end of every talk and testimony.

A couple of months ago my oldest son and his wife and daughter came to stay with us for a couple of weeks as a kind of working vacation.  My son is one of these conscientious LDS who take notes of sacrament meeting talks, and so there he was earnestly scribbling during the meeting on the first Sunday they were there.  I didn't think much of it until the end of the meeting block when he showed me his notes and enthusiasitically pronounced the talks that day to be the best he had heard in a long time.  I had to suppress a moment of evident incredulity, as I responded "Wha...?  Oh, yes, they were good."  What I meant to say was they were just as good as our talks generally are.  The two speakers, a husband and wife, did a creditable job, but nothing, I thought, to write home about.  Clearly I was mistaken!

I've given talks that I thought were crap, or common garden variety, only to have folks come up to me afterwards and enthusiastically praise them.  One time our stake president told me he was still thinking about a talk I had given two weeks previously.  I was sort of worried about that one.  I still don't know if that meant he liked the talk or thought I was bordering on apostasy!  

But it might be useful feedback to get someone to hold numbers up!  Great suggestion, and if I think of it I will suggest this to our Bishop.

[kolipoki09]

Lamanite, on 15 September 2010 - 10:55 PM, said:

I would not consider it a derail and would love to hear from Brother Hales, on any of the topics.


Big UP!

Lamanite

I know he's no stranger to discussion boards. I witnessed a great exchange he had with an agnostic/atheist on the "Joseph Smith the Prophet" Facebook page. He has a lot of patience...to say the least. There are a few of us from MADB who have previously debated said person who shall remain unnamed for the sake of their own privacy. I'm sure it would be worth Brian's while to come. But then again, its up to him, and he's the expert on what he's written, not me. I'd like to see his response to the information posted above concerning a particular viewpoint offered on the Manifesto.

[maxrep12]

Daniel Peterson, on 07 September 2010 - 09:17 AM, said:

I never imagined that everybody would find all entries equally helpful.  There would have been little point in having more than one, were that the case.

Different voices will appeal to different people at different times.

His testimony was refreshing. He spoke to a key issue of Josephs life with a measure of clarity that I have seldom seen;

"Sexual relations were present in some of the Prophet’s plural marriages, but probably in much fewer than half and they were not a common occurrence. It appears that only two or perhaps three children were born through those unions."

I have not heard this statement made before with such frankness. Kudos for honesty and clear speaking.

Edited by maxrep12, 16 September 2010 - 06:19 PM.

[BrianHales]

kamenraider, on 15 September 2010 - 10:52 PM, said:

Brian Hales seems to have overlooked my post above, so I just sent him a private message inviting him to discuss the 1886 revelation on this board.

Hello - this is a new experience for me - I've not been much of a blogger, but the issues raised are worth discussing.

For the critic of my testimony/non-testimony I guess I could have phrased things better.  It seems to me that some Church members might be worried about Joseph Smith's involvement with plural marriage - thinking that perhaps there is some dark secret hiding there.  Certainly the antagonists imply as much.  I've tried to read every known document dealing with the topic and I can affirm that Joseph Smith was a devout, virtuous, prophet of God.

I apologize for the self-promotion - coming across as Mr. know-it-all on JS's polygamy.  There is much I don't know, but I've tried to SEE everything and I do not believe there are any secrets that will damage testimony except that the topic - polygamy - is meaty and may cause milk-drinkers to choke (D&C 19:22).

Regarding the 1886 revelation.  Sorry if someone thinks I "hedge."  I think is it genuine and that it says what it says, nothing more, nothing less.

I appreciate the quotes from Drew Briney's book.  I went to lunch with him and his lovely wife a week ago.  He and I differ on important points, but I admire his gifts and accomplishments and his ability to juggle :-)

So, what is the significance of the 1886 revelation?  Does it authorize continued plural marriage?  Or does the New and Everlasting Covenant mentioned include the principle of plural marriage, but is not limited strictly to it?  Who can say?

Here's my take:  Imagine a group of boys playing baseball.  They've played hard for hours and the afternoon sun starts to set.  They congregate on the pitcher's mound to decide whether they should play another inning or two.  As they discuss the pro and cons of continuing, the boy who owns the ONLY baseball grabs the ball and says, "I done."  He walks off with the baseball in hand.  The remaining boys could disagree.  They could have a testimony meeting that baseball should continue.  They could have a group prayer or whatever.  It wouldn't matter.  Without the baseball, the game can't be played.  Some of the boys might be so bothered that they find a roundish rock or and apple or a dirt clod and play with that.  It wouldn't be real baseball, but a counterfeit.

You see, our opinions about the true meaning of the 1886 revelation are really immaterial.  The only person whose opinion matters is the "one" man who holds the keys of sealing (D&C 132:7).  If he says we're done with plural marriage, I think we're done.  Creative interpretations of the 1886 revelation or the 1890 manifesto have no meaning because rhetoric and strong argument cannot conjure up genuine sealing authority.  

It seems to me that any marriage, monogamous or polygamous, even if entered into sincerely with burning bosoms all around, still must be "through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power" or else "it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God." (D&C 132:18; bold mine) .

I'm convinced that if Joseph Smith were here, he would condemn all of the "Mormon fundamentalists" because they have no authority.  And I bet he would quote them D&C 132:18.

If anyone thinks that genuine authority is not needed or that John Woolley or Lorin or A. Dayer Lebaron or Elden Kingston or James Harmston or _________________ [fill in the blank] held the keys of sealing in succession from Joseph Smith, then we should probably start another thread :-)

Comments?

Brian Hales

[kolipoki09]

I think the majority of the issues raised in this thread were those recited from Drew Briney's book and posted here by kamenraider.

Your response to Briney's work is admirable and civil. I personally can learn a lot from that. You mentioned that you admire Briney's ability to "juggle" in addition to his accomplishments. Do you think Briney's book would be sold at a typical run-of-the-mill LDS bookstore, or is the content too "meaty" and potentially speculative? I'm interested in Briney's point of view, but given that I don't have his book and only have two of your books Brian...I don't feel that I have the resources necessary to properly analyze these issues point by point, though your work has been instrumental in bringing previously unknown or obscure knowledge about plural marriage to the forefront of LDS scholarship.

As with many historical issues, the 1886 Revelation is one that have proved itself controversial, even among practicing members of the Church. Ultimately the keys of prophetic authority rest with the Lord's living oracles, in whom the dispensation of the fullness of times is entrusted. I never saw Taylor's words as contradictory to later statements prohibiting plural marriage by later prophets. Plural marriage was a limited practice in the first place.

On a side note, it has been attributed to author Richard S. Van Wagoner that the number of plural marriages being performed actually increases AFTER the 1890 Manifesto. While there were several marriages that were performed well into the 20th Century, is there any evidence to suggest that the aforementioned conclusion is correct?